Some commonly asked questions regarding the
meaning and implications of the event of Ghadir Khumm, and their responses from
a variety of online texts.

How does the word mawla
imply authority?

The words, Wala,
Walayat, Wilayat, Waly, Mawla,
Awla and the like have been derived from the same root,
viz. Waly. The various forms of this root-word and its derivatives are
the most oft-recurring words in the Holy Qur'an. It is said that they
have been used 124 times in the form of a noun and 112 times in the form
of a verb.

... However some people did
try to interpret the tradition in a different way. They particularly
tried to translate the words wali (master/guardian), mawla
(master/leader), and wilayah
(mastery/leadership/guardianship) as friend and friendship.

... As the Sunnis cannot
deny the authenticity of the hadith of Ghadir, they try to downplay its
significance by saying that the word "mawla" in
this hadith means 'friend', and that the Holy Prophet wanted to announce
that: "Whoever whose friend I am, 'Ali is his friend!"

The trouble is that not a single person
who was present in Ghadir grasped this alleged meaning.

Now let us see what the
Messenger of God meant by the word "master" (mawla)
when he said: "For whomsoever I was his master, 'Ali is now his
master." Does it mean one who has prior rights of disposition, as
the concomitant of the absolute governance of one person over another,
or simply a helper and friend?

Doesn't this hadith
relate to when the Prophet [s] addressed some people who had been with 'Ali in
Yemen and were unhappy with him on the issue of distribution of booty?

As regarding the pretext
they claim, it is nothing but a speculation and an adulteration. It is
the sophistry of confusion and embellishment. The Prophet (pbuh)
dispatched `Ali to Yemen twice, the first took place in 8 A.H. It was
then that scandal­mongers spread rumours about him, and some people
complained about him to the Prophet (pbuh) upon their return to
Medina...

Wasn't the verse
"This day have I perfected for you your religion..." revealed in `Arafah?

Al-Bukhari is reported to
have said in his Sahih.... from Tariq ibn Shahab, who said: Some of the
Jews said: Had this verse been revealed unto us we would have taken that
day as a feast. 'Umar asked them: Which verse you mean? They replied:
"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My
favour unto you, and have chosen for you Islam as a religion." 'Umar
said: I know the place where it was revealed. It was revealed while the
Messenger of Allah, upon whom be Allah's peace and benediction, was
halting at 'Arafat....

How could all the Companions
ignore or forget about this event if it implied 'Ali's designation as successor?

Here the following question
arises. Given the fact that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him
and his family, proclaimed 'Ali to be his legatee (wasiyy) and
successor (khalifah), emphatically designated him as the leader
of the Muslims both at Ghadir Khumm and on other appropriate occasions,
how did it happen that after the death of the Most Noble Messenger his
Companions (sahabah) ignored God's command and abandoned 'Ali,
that noble and precious personage, decided not to obey him, chose
someone else to be leader in his place, and entrusted the reins of rule
to him?

The important element to
complement the research, that is worth mentioning and investigation, may
be the sole objection that most often be raised when the obstinates
being dumbfounded by irrefutable arguments whereat they resort to
wondering and denying that a hundred thousand companions attended the
event of nominating al-Imam 'Ali (as a caliph). They all conspired it,
opposed and turned away from him, though some of them were the best of
companions, and most honourable of the Ummah! I was encountered with
such an event in particular when launching my research, as I couldn't
believe, nor does anyone, that the issue being laid in this way. But
when studying the issue with all its dimensions, no wonder will remain
in the minds, as the issue is not the way we imagine or as presented by
Ahl al-Sunnah....

Some people ask why at the
meeting held in the Saqifah 'Ali, peace be upon him, did not raise the
issue of his appointment at Ghadir Khumm by the Messenger of God, peace
and blessings be upon him and his family, to be his successor. Why, they
ask, did he not tell the Migrants and the Helpers that he had been
appointed by the Prophet so that nobody had the right to contest the
succession with him or to claim the caliphate? Had the thousands of
people who had been present at Ghadir Khumm forgotten what they had
witnessed?

Could this
tradition not be interpreted to indicate that the Prophet's intention was
futuristic?

You have, may Allah support
the truth through your person, asked us to be convinced that the gist of
hadith al­Ghadir is that `Ali is the most worthy for imamate when and if
the Muslims choose him as such and swear the oath of allegiance to
him. Hence, his priority to which the hadith hints is futuristic, rather than
immediate. In other words, such a priority will take place when and if
it is forcibly taken, rather than being actual, so that it does not
clash with the caliphate of the three imams who preceded him [in ruling
the Muslims]....

Isn't
this belief of appointment against the principles of democracy and shura?

There are people who think
that if government were to originate with the people themselves, with
the members of society choosing their own leader from among qualified
persons, relying in their choice on their own desires, perceptive
capacities and relative knowledge of the strong and weak points of
various individuals, this would be more in accord with freedom and
democracy and thus enable mankind to attain its highest ideal. They
imagine further that if the people are not permitted to have any share
in the choice and designation of their leader and if the office of Imam
or caliph is not a fully elected one, the people will see in him simply
a ruler who has been imposed on them.